South Africa Case Law

Leyka v Minister of Health and Others (69302/2019)

Leyka v Minister of Health and Others (69302/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 555 (18 July 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

69302/2019

Judge

Baqwa

The applicant, as an asylum seeker, is not entitled to a funded medical internship post under the applicable statutory and policy framework. The Health Professions Act and relevant regulations require internships but do not guarantee funding for non-citizens. The Progressive Integrated Plan and Policy Guideline lawfully prioritise South African citizens and permanent residents for funded posts, with non-citizens, including asylum seekers and refugees, only eligible for self-funded internships subject to available resources. The applicant voluntarily entered into a contract for an unfunded int…

Source excerpt

• Health Professions Act
• Medical Internship Policy
• Refugees Act
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Equality Rights
• Separation Of Powers

K.R.G v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (40023/21)

K.R.G v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (40023/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 311; [2022] 3 All SA 58 (GP); 2022 (5) SA 478 (GP) (11 May 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

40023/21

Judge

E van der Schyff

Section 7(3)(a) of the Divorce Act, which restricts the court's discretion to grant redistribution orders to marriages out of community of property entered into before 1 November 1984, constitutes unfair discrimination and violates section 9(3) of the Constitution. The time-bar arbitrarily excludes economically disadvantaged spouses married after that date from seeking just and equitable relief, despite similar circumstances to those married before the cut-off. The differentiation is not justified by any legitimate government purpose and perpetuates economic and gender-based inequality. The c…

Source excerpt

• Divorce Act Section 7 3
• Matrimonial Property Regimes
• Unfair Discrimination
• Judicial Discretion
• Equality Rights
• Retrospective Invalidity

Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others (22808/2020)

Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others (22808/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 308; 2021 (1) SA 553 (GP) (18 June 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

22808/2020

Judge

S A M Baqwa

The exclusion of asylum seekers and special permit holders from eligibility for the Covid-19 Social Relief of Distress grant was found to be unlawful, unconstitutional, and invalid. The Court held that section 27 of the Constitution guarantees the right to social assistance to 'everyone', which includes non-citizens lawfully present in South Africa. The relevant regulations, when read purposively and in light of Regulation 9(5), extend eligibility for social relief of distress during a disaster to all affected households, not only citizens, permanent residents, or refugees. The differentiatio…

Source excerpt

• Social Relief Of Distress Grant
• Equality Rights
• Human Dignity
• Disaster Management Act
• Refugees And Asylum Seekers
• Judicial Review Of Regulations

Minister of Safety and Security v South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association (CCT177/17)

Minister of Safety and Security v South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association (CCT177/17) [2018] ZACC 14; 2018 (2) SACR 164 (CC); 2018 (10) BCLR 1268 (CC) (7 June 2018)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 177/17

Judges

Zondo, Cachalia, Dlodlo, Froneman, Goliath, Jafta, Petse, Theron

Sections 24 and 28 of the Firearms Control Act are not vague or irrational. The provisions clearly set out the requirements for renewal and termination of firearm licences, and the consequences of non-compliance are explicit. The licensing system is rationally connected to the legitimate purpose of controlling firearms and protecting constitutional rights to life and bodily integrity. The differentiation between categories of licence termination is rational and does not amount to unfair discrimination. Any deprivation of property occurs under other provisions, not the impugned sections, and i…

Source excerpt

• Firearms Control Act
• Vagueness And Rationality
• Equality Rights
• Deprivation Of Property
• Rule Of Law
• Confirmation Proceedings

Phaahla v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (97569/15)

Phaahla v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (97569/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1271 (24 October 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

97569/15

Respondents seek leave to appeal a Full Bench ruling on parole, equality, and discrimination under the Correctional Services Act and Constitution.

• Parole Regime
• Equality Rights
• Unfair Discrimination
• Limitation Of Rights
• Retroactive Legislation
• Costs Order

South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association v Minister of Safety and Security of the Republic of South Africa (21177/2016)

South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association v Minister of Safety and Security of the Republic of South Africa (21177/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 299; [2017] 3 All SA 1059 (GP); 2017 (2) SACR 288 (GP) (4 July 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

21177/2016

Judge

R G Tolmay

Sections 24 and 28 of the Firearms Control Act, 2000 (Act 60 of 2000) are unconstitutional because they fail to provide a rational, clear, and non-arbitrary mechanism for firearm owners to rectify late renewal of licences. The legislative scheme does not offer due process for licence termination by effluxion of time, unlike other forms of termination, resulting in unequal treatment and violation of the right to equality. The absence of procedures for surrendering firearms and the inability to surrender for value constitute an arbitrary deprivation of property, infringing section 25 of the Con…

Source excerpt

• Firearms Control Act
• Rationality Review
• Void For Vagueness
• Property Rights
• Equality Rights
• Due Process

AB and Another v Minister of Social Development As Amicus Curiae: Centre for Child Law (40658/13)

AB and Another v Minister of Social Development As Amicus Curiae: Centre for Child Law (40658/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 580; [2015] 4 All SA 24 (GP); 2015 (10) BCLR 1228 (GP); 2016 (2) SA 27 (GP) (12 August 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

40658/13

Judge

AC Basson

The High Court struck down the Children’s Act genetic-link requirement for surrogacy, finding it unconstitutional discrimination against conception-infertile persons.

• Genetic Link Requirement
• Surrogacy Motherhood Agreements
• Equality Rights
• Reproductive Autonomy
• Human Dignity
• Access To Healthcare

Legal-Aid South Africa v Magidiwana and Others (1055/13)

Legal-Aid South Africa v Magidiwana and Others (1055/13) [2014] ZASCA 141; 2015 (2) SA 568 (SCA); [2014] 4 All SA 570 (SCA) (26 September 2014)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1055/13

Judges

Ponnan, Maya, Swain, Zondi, Fourie

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, following the settlement agreement between the parties, there was no longer any live dispute or lis requiring adjudication. The appeal was dismissed in terms of s 16(2)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act, as any judgment would have no practical effect or result. The court found that, as a matter of principle, where all disputes have been resolved by agreement, it has no discretion to entertain the appeal. Even if such discretion existed, the circumstances did not warrant its exercise, as the case did not raise a discrete legal issue of public importance li…

Source excerpt

• Superior Courts Act Section 16
• Mootness
• State Funded Legal Representation
• Equality Rights
• Commissions Of Inquiry

Abraham and Another v Mount Edgecombe Country Club Estate Management Association Two (RF) (NPC) (7124/12)

Abraham and Another v Mount Edgecombe Country Club Estate Management Association Two (RF) (NPC) (7124/12) [2014] ZAKZDHC 36 (17 September 2014)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

7124/12

Judge

Olsen

The court held that the respondent's pet control rule, which prohibits dogs exceeding 20kg unless of a non-aggressive breed, is contractually binding and does not confer a general discretion to grant exceptions. The only discretion available is in truly exceptional cases, such as guide dogs for the blind, to avoid unreasonable or discriminatory outcomes. The applicants failed to demonstrate any extraordinary circumstances warranting an exception. The respondent's refusal was not procedurally unfair, as the applicants were given an opportunity to make submissions and were granted additional ti…

Source excerpt

• Homeowners Association Rules
• Contractual Interpretation
• Pet Control
• Procedural Fairness
• Equality Rights

Linden v Minister of Police and Others (50509/11)

Linden v Minister of Police and Others (50509/11) [2013] ZAGPPHC 29 (6 February 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

50509/11

Judge

BAM

The court held that the plaintiff's particulars of claim do not seek separate compensation for constitutional rights in addition to common law damages. The reference to constitutional rights in the pleadings does not offend the law as stated in Fose v Minister of Safety and Security, which prohibits additional constitutional damages where common law damages suffice. The plaintiff is entitled to plead that her constitutional rights were infringed, and the particulars of claim are not vague or embarrassing. The third defendant's exception is therefore dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Pleading Requirements
• Constitutional Damages
• Equality Rights
• Human Dignity
• Just Administrative Action